PRESQUE ISLE, Maine — A 49-year-old Madawaska woman did not have to go to a shopping center to find a gift for her daughter, who was anxiously awaiting her first child. That is because Linda Sirois gave her daughter the gift that she wanted the most — the baby.
Sirois’ grandson, Madden Brian Hebert, was born on Aug. 17 at The Aroostook Medical Center in Presque Isle. His birth was extra special, as Sirois carried the baby for her daughter, 25-year-old Angel Hebert and her 29-year-old husband, Brian Hebert.
It was the first child for the Presque Isle couple.
“She is amazing,” Angel Hebert said of her mother. “I couldn’t have asked for a better mother. It’s such a great and selfless gift she has given us. She brought her grandson into the world and we now have our beautiful baby boy. We are all super excited.”
Hospital officials said earlier this week that Angel Hebert could not carry the baby on her own due to a heart condition. The couple feared they would go through life childless, as Hebert was told by her cardiologist that carrying a child to term would pose a considerable risk to both her and the baby. He strongly advised against a pregnancy.
Enter Sirois, who said that she “couldn’t imagine” not offering to carry the child for her daughter and son-in-law.
“I couldn’t see them going through life without a child, while I am capable of helping them,” she said. “It’s only nine months for me to give them a child for life. I knew it could be done. I had heard of a 60-year-old grandmother serving as a surrogate for her grandchild, so I knew it was possible.”
The couple started looking into the process last summer. They made calls to various clinics throughout New England but they turned Sirois down as a surrogate due to her age. Undaunted, Sirois contacted the Reproductive Science Center of New England in Lexington, Mass., who agreed to help.
As part of the screening process, Sirois had to undergo testing to ensure she was in optimal health to carry a child. After being cleared, much of the testing and procedures necessary in the following months were done at local hospitals.
Results were forwarded to the Reproductive Science Center.
“Angel had her calendar of instructions to follow for egg retrieval, and I had mine for preparing my body for embryo transfer,” said Sirois. “It was intense, but we took it step by step, one day at a time.”
The couple returned to the Reproductive Science Center last November, where the in vitro fertilization process began. Doctors used an egg taken from Angel Hebert and sperm from her husband. The embryo was implanted in Sirois on Dec. 1, 2011.
Sirois took a pregnancy test on Dec. 14, and it was positive. She was pregnant for the first time in two decades.
Hospital officials said the last time she gave birth was to twin sons Michael and Matthew, 20 years ago.
Sirois said the pregnancy went smoothly, and she felt good and did not have any complications.
“I also had a great deal of support and well wishes from friends and family, and the community at large,” she said. “God was with us throughout this whole process.”
Another unique aspect to the event was that Sirois was pregnant at the same time as her oldest daughter, 26-year-old Kristal Duval.
For the nine months that followed, Angel Hebert, a dietitian at TAMC, and Brian Hebert attended prenatal appointments and did all the regular things expecting parents do, such as listening to the baby’s heartbeat.
Angel Hebert described the nine month experience as “surreal.”
“I wanted it all to go so smoothly for both my mother and our baby,” she said. “Thankfully, everyone at TAMC was so helpful in making things go smoothly. It was a situation that hadn’t been seen here before. I was really pleased to see the reaction of the staff — everyone was so excited for us and so helpful and accommodating.”
Before baby Madden’s birth, another boy added a branch to the family tree when Kristal Duval gave birth on June 9 to Sirois’ first grandchild, Everett Duval.
Sirois’ second grandson was delivered via cesarean section in a day filled with emotion for both the family and team of TAMC caregivers who were part of the journey and delivery.
“It was a pretty amazing experience,” said Dr. Joyce Hebert, who delivered the baby boy. “This was the first time in my career that I have ever delivered a baby under these circumstances and it could not have gone better. This is one of the most memorable moments in my career and I was pleased to be a part of it.”
Hebert’s sentiments were shared by all of the caregivers in the operating room when the 7 lbs., 14 oz. baby entered the world at exactly 8 a.m.
Sirois, her daughter and son-in-law, and the baby are doing great.
The 49-year-old said she was only “baby-sitting” her grandson for the nine months she carried him.
“It was their child all along,” she said. “I was just fortunate and blessed to be a part of this experience and be able to help bring him into the world.”
What a heartwarming story!
God bless Grandma, Mom, Dad and especially baby.
Congratulations to a beautiful, caring and supportive family. What a wonderful and positive story!
Ugh. grave concerns, seriously? You know how many embryos were created for this family? Unnatural reproductive procedure? Really? As defined by whom? You? How miserable can a person be to want to “warn” people about science that they don’t approve of or understand in order to detract from another family’s positive experience and joyful occasion.
In other words what you are saying is that as long as, for example, someone like myself takes exception and stands for what is right, it is okay for someone else to take his life.
Look, when someone is discriminated against for some reason or another we are all dehumanized. If it’s permissible to take the life of an innocent human being not yet born then it must be okay to kill someone who is mentally deficient, physically impaired, not the right skin color, a non-contributing member, gay, not the desired sex, considered a pest, etc. Right now if a fetus is unwanted it is not a baby. Ironically, if it is wanted, then the opposite is true. What kind of rationale is that?
In China where abortion is permitted, having more than one child – with some exceptions – is not permitted. This one-child state policy has led to female infanticide, thus reinforcing the idea that somehow females are lesser human beings.
Unless we insist on upholding the dignity of all human beings there will always be a rationale for legally taking someone’s life. It’s happening in China. It happened in Germany before and during World War II.
“stands for what is right”? Again, defined by whom? And how do you make the connection between a person being surrogate mom and killing people? It’s a pretty twisted attempt to further your personal agenda and control other people’s reproduction based on your (probable religious) beliefs. And where? In a story about a family that came together, are supportive of one another, and have a beautiful new child as a result of that family bond.
Want to uphold the dignity of human beings? Don’t presume to tell them that adding to their family is wrong because of your value system. Worry less about cells in a petri dish and adopt a child without a family. Write a nice big check to DHHS to help the children you can’t adopt. Volunteer at a home (orphanage) to help these children out.
I can understand someone like a mother wanting to help someone else like her adult child to have a child. But well-intentioned acts never outweigh the wrong done by taking an innocent human life. This sort of attitude of the-means-justifies-the-end is not only a gross violation of human rights and dignity, it poses a real threat to mankind as well.
Mind your own business and keep your ridiculous and baseless hyperbole to yourself.
According to this article, a beautiful child was born – no one died, no one was murdered. it’s quite a leap to say that a single birth threatens mankind or that genocide on the scale of germany will happen as a result of this birth….are we reading the same article?
It has already been pointed out that, in nature, not every fertilized egg will implant and grow. These are flushed out by the body. Not all fertilized eggs survive the journey to the uterus to become implanted. Some don’t make the journey at all and become attached to the tube giving rise to tubal pregnancies which are not viable, dangerous to the mother, and must be terminated. There are intraabdominal pregnancies which usually fail and the embryonic material must either be surgically removed or is reabsorbed by the mother’s own body. It is for this reason that multiple eggs are harvested and fertilized and using microscopic technology the healthiest egg(s) are chosen for use. Yes, the other eggs, that may be later discarded, have the potential to be human life, as they can be nothing else, may in the natural course of things never develop anyway. There is, at this point in time, no way to be sure.
What is sure here, is that a surrogate carried a live human being to birth to be cared for by the biologic contributors of the egg and sperm used to create it. That is a reason to celebrate. Had the biologic mother chosen to risk a pregnancy, it may have terminated her life and that of the child she now holds in her arms. I think this is a miracle and a great gift given to her by the woman who gave her life, her own mother.
My own daughter had an intraabdominal pregnancy created by the presence of a large and deadly tumor. The fetal heartbeat ceased to be at ten weeks and while trying to locate that heartbeat the doctors discovered the deadly tumor. My child was rushed to surgery where the tumor and fetal remains were removed along with half of my daughter’s reporductive system. Because of the existence of that little angel, my daughter’s life was spared and eleven months later, she gave birth to the most beautiful baby girl, my granddaughter. The tiny being she lost, no larger than a walnut, had its own purpose, I believe, in the grand scheme of things. That was to save its mothers life to give birth to its sibling(s). Perhaps that is the reason for the existence of the unused potential for life-to assure a safe journey for one small human.
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I take strong exception to your rendering of discarded eggs as “potential to be human life” when in fact these have become human life upon fertilization. In 1981 the US Senate made its own investigation as to when human life begins. It invited scientists from all walks of life, embryologists, medical doctors, etc to testify. It concluded there was an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community over the issue of when life begins, that is, at conception.
Tell me, what’s wrong with adoption for couples who can’t produce a child through the natural process of procreation? My own brother and his wife did that over 30 years ago. Their attachment to their child is no different than mine is to by own offspring. Now, there is even more reason to celebrate, for they gave themselves as a gift to their adopted child who had no parents to care of it, all without exposing a donor mother to the danger of egg retrieval and sacrificing the lives of nascent human beings left off to die un-implanted. Regrettably this is the tragic side of in vitro fertilization procedure the unwary public is not sufficiently informed of.
You’re not talking about anything that’s relevant. You have a weird and extreme point of view that you’re trying to baselessly attach to other issues in order to legitimize your position.
Standing for the right to life of all human beings is “a weird and extreme point of view”, according you. If this is so weird and extreme why do most Americans consider themselves pro-life? If this stand is “weird” to you, you must be dead to the world. That stand is well-known to nearly every American.
I’m sorry, but a pack of cells in a petri dish isn’t a human life.
You sound like an expert in the field of embryology. Maybe you should present your case to embryologists.
They would agree it’s not a human being. As would everyone but the freaky fringe you’re a part of.
Why are you afraid to consult a textbook on embryology. You’re a smart fellow, so what’s the problem? Are you afraid to be proven wrong? Name calling won’t get you anywhere but the search for truth will.
Look, I’m not going to have a discussion with a person who keeps lying. You keep saying the sky is green when it’s not. Embryologists don’t call an embryo a person. They don’t call a fetus a person either. You’re lying. That’s not name calling. That’s me pointing out the fact that you’re being dishonest.
You say you are “not going to have a discussion with a person (me, I presume) who keeps lying “. Great, now you’re making sense. I feel the same way as you do. Now show me I am lying with an authoritative source in embryology. Show me that I am being dishonest. I dare you. I double dare you.
Well that was real hard –
http://www.embryology.ch/indexen.html sorry you will have to do the reading yourself – if you can…..
HERE’S A MUCH EASIER READING FROM SCOTT KLUSENDORF:
In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being” was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception.
Consider the following quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)
A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.)
Yawn –
You will never understand anything of real value unless you put your mind to it. Yawning is not an adequate response. It’s more like a rebellious adolescent’s response.
I employee 83 hard working Mainers supplying them with much more then a living wage, health insurance and a matching retirement fund.
Over 30 of those employees are single mothers who used to be on assistance and who had been looking for work but noone would give them a chance.
I spent most of my summer in New York helping open a home for teenage homeless kids desperately trying to stay in school and better themselves.
I volunteer over 20 hours a week in my community spending my time with at risk youths.
What have you done for these children?
You care so much about them while they are in the womb (or in this case in a dish) but yet I guarantee you don’t do jack for them once they breath real air.
I’ve raised a family, have grandchildren to take care of on occasion, taught school, volunteered my services at a school for the blind where I did anything from bathing children to taking them out bowling. That accusation of yours about not caring for children after birth is not a new one. It’s designed to put down people like myself who support the rights of all human beings. Just be thankful your mother did not snuff out your life after you were conceived. Also, if society can justify the taking of innocent human life in its most nascent stage, it can justify the taking of human life at any stage or for whatever reason. Pre-war Germany is a fine example of that.
You are really going to compare concentration camps to not using all the eggs in a dish? Really? Lady that is a slap in the face to anyone who suffered in that time just to try and justify your point. Your disgusting.
My point is and remains, the justification for in vitro fertilization is far outweighed by the deaths of innocent life it entails. If a couple can’t conceive, they can always adopt a child. Now there is real reason to celebrate: a child without parents is given a set of willing parents.
references from…1859? Jeez because all of the things written in 1859 are 100% accurate and well respected today…
The point of the reference is that science has known about the beginning of human life for more than 150 years. That has not changed except for a greater understanding of just how human beings come into existence at the embryonic level.
At this point I must ask you what real argument do you have to contradict the finding by the US Senate in 1981 concerning the beginning of human life?
I just don’t have any interest in copying and pasting whatever obscure reference supports or doesn’t support a political agenda. It’s so sad that you have hijacked a family’s happy occasion and equated it with genocide and dehumanization of all of mankind…just to further your personal political agenda.
I have nothing personal to gain from exposing a procedure that has ethical and moral implications. I understand, regrettably the Sirois family is caught in the crossfire of a cultural war. But they were exploited by the media, including the BDN. I have little doubt BDN was aware of the controversial nature of in vitro fertilization. Yet this newspaper chose to make it public by publishing the story.
I know of other couples who have resorted to this procedure. Yet I chose to spare them of any public humiliation. The Sirois family case however is very different since they allowed themselves, perhaps unwittingly, to be exploited by this newspaper.
http://groups.molbiosci.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-E/embryo.html
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/4/905.full
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetal+Rights
An embryo is not a person. Period.
I read your sources. I’m sorry to inform you that none are authoritative sources in embryology.
Here are some sources from a fellow named Scott Klusendorf whom I quote here:
‘In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being” was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception.
Consider the following quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)
A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.)
In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being” was a scientific truth. Nothing has changed since that time. For the past 150 years doctors have known that life begins at conception.
Consider the following quotations from medical experts in the field of embryology.
“It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43.)
“Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
Dr. Watson A. Bowes of the University of Colorado Medical School speaks clearly, when he says, “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.)
A 1981 U.S. Senate report states, “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers, Ibid.)
You’re ridiculous. An embryo isn’t a person. Period. None of your quotes or citations affirm what you’re saying either. Just because something is alive, doesn’t make it a person. You can cut off your own finger and it will live for awhile, but it is not a person. To create a person, you fertilize an egg, but a fertilized egg is not a person.
Again, your quotes aren’t saying what you are claiming they do. You have an opinion and that’s fine, but you’re distorting reality to try and make others agree with you and that’s not fair.
‘In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical
Association (AMA) understood that “the independent and actual existence
of the child before birth as a living being” was a scientific truth.
Nothing has changed since that time.’
What part of that sentence don’t you understand? Why don’t you do a web search on THE AMA 1859 REPORT ON CRIMINAL ABORTION in order to verify this information if you don’t believe it?
How about this statement: “It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant
mingling of the nuclear material that each brings to the union that
constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and MARKS THE INITIATION OF THE LIFE OF A NEW INDIVIDUAL (capitalization is mine for emphasis)”.
That is a quote from a textbook on embryology by Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology, 3rd ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 1968, page 43. What this quote says is that the process of fertilization (that is, when the sperm fuses with the human egg called the ovum) marks the beginning of new life. Although this new life can’t reproduce yet, neither can a three-year old child. Is the child not a human being because of it’s inability to reproduce? Also, this “new life” the source refers to is not just a mere cell. Unlike a mere cell it will continue to develop until it becomes a full blown human adult.
Here’s another authoritative statement: “”Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is
alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by
some specific condition.” (E. L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of
the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical
Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
This is what I have been saying all along. Life begins at the moment of fertilization when “a sperm cell and ovum unite to a new being”. What “new being” do you suppose this authority is referring to? A piece of tissue, a pig, a cow, or a human being?
Another authoritative source: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view
a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”
(Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee
S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981.) How can this statement be any more straight forward? It says essentially that the beginning of a single human life is the beginning of human conception (or fertilization, if you will). Both beginnings coincide, so what does this tell you about when human life begins? Obviously it say human life begins at conception, a point I have been making all along.
And finally, the last source, a 1981 report from the US Senate itself reporting its findings. It states in plain language when human life begins: “Physicians, biologists, and other
scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a
human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human
species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless
medical, biological, and scientific writings.” (Subcommittee on
Separation of Powers). What part of this statement don’t you understand.? It’s clear that “conception marks the beginning of a human being – a being that is alive and is a MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES” (The capitalization here was added by me for emphasis. How much clearer can this statement be from the US Senate on its finding about the origin of human life? Just think, a member of the human species is what fertilization of a human egg and sperm produce.
Wolfndeer, I can’t make this topic any clearer for you. I graduated from college with a minor in biology. So to me this all makes perfect sense. Now you should have no more need to consult the experts in human embryology because I did all the foot work for you. I rarely do this for anybody else, but I did it for you in case you have any doubts.
so when you were an embryo, you weren’t a person…but you are now…..and nothing happened except you grew inside your mothers (or gandmothers ) stomach…hmmm…who is on their own island of Illogical…
“Look, when someone is discriminated against for some reason or another we are all dehumanized.” You also said after quoting Orwell that “all human beings are equal.” You clearly have extreme views regarding the right to life, but you are also very hypocritical. You have dehumanized gays and have said that they should not be considered equal. You have no right to criticize others’ opinions regarding human life when you clearly disregard at least 10% of our population.
at least they had more brains then octomom..they CAN fertilize One egg at a time
i would have done this for either of my girls..now that little boy will be very close to his gram, more so then most. finally a truely heartwarming story from BDN
pretty strange imo,, maybe i’m just old fashion, mom’s my sister and grammie’s my mom type thing.. best wishes to them i guess.. i dunno, times sure have changed..
Is she the babies mother….sister…..or both?
Here is the basic scientific explanation. “Doctors used an egg taken from Angel Hebert and sperm from her husband. The embryo was implanted in Sirois on Dec. 1, 2011.”
It is an excerpt from the article. I take it you did not read any of it?
That doesn’t sound very scientific, more like news reporting.
Biologically, the child is Angel and her husband’s. It was their egg and sperm that were used. The only thing that may make this story ‘strange’ is the fact that it wasn’t a stranger who was the surrogate, it was the mother’s own mom.
But what makes the story “strange” is the human tragedy that is left out of it. Tiny innocent human beings resulting from in vitro fertilization are almost always left to die without a surrogate mother.
Since the article doesn’t say how many eggs were fertilized, OR how many were implanted, you are only ASSUMING that there were unused ones. Unless you have direct knowledge of these numbers, I suggest you stop accusing people of things.
What is strange is that anyone would call a zygote a “human being” at the moment of conception.
You were once an embryo, a zygote, a fetus, an infant, a teenager; and now you are presumably and adult. All those represent developmental stages of growth of a human being. Yes, you may have looked different in the early stages of your life but you will continue to look differently as you age until your last breath. Cut off of life at any of these stages you would have undoubtedly lost the ability to breath, move, hold an opinion, pray, and express yourself forever. Would you deny another the right to life at any point or stage of development?
Whawell, you’ve stated your opinion very clearly several times. I for one have heard you and though I agree that life is precious, in this case, a baby was given life where there may not have been life for that baby without the surrogate. It’s ok that you can only see tragedy in what wasn’t. I for one am rejoicing in what IS and the generousity that brought this about.
There are two sides to the story in the Sirois case. One was mentioned
and lauded: a human being came into being at conception, and that human
being was born nine months later, more or less, to the parents’ delight.
The other side was ignored for obvious reasons because it most likely
entailed the dark side, that is, the death of several human beings. I
point this out because I want to remind people that human life itself is
more important and precious than what one desires for his or her own
satisfaction. One right – the conception of a child – does not justify
the likely death of several children in their most nascent stage of
life.
“Doctors used an egg taken from Angel Hebert and sperm from her husband. The embryo was implanted in Sirois on Dec. 1, 2011. ”
What is hard to understand about that? Did you read the story? Or do you really have a hard time comprehending the basic science here?
“Or do you really have a hard time comprehending the basic science here”
You are right, I believe it was Newton who came up with this very BASIC science. Not like we just started doing this type of thing within the past couple decades…
Yeah I have to agree. The woman really took it hard on him. The reader obviously understood the science, they just thought it was awkward for a mother to carry the daughter’s child
Just me, but I think I’d get over the awkwardness pretty quick if it meant that I could have a baby without risking the lives of myself and the child.
thank you so much for correcting my opinion. i’ll be sure and check with you first in the future. or is it that you just fail to understand the simple logic of, it’s my opinion!
Fortunately, it isn’t your life and your family, so your opinion is about as important as a piece of dirt on the ground.
but yours is?
It didn’t say it was. It’s the family’s business. Their life, so butt out.
it stopped being the family’s business when they agreed to be paraded on a public forum. so imo, it’s a bit like a jerry springer episode. further more, i’m not your man friend so leave my butt out of it.
I know this family and nicer people you couldn’t ask for, Hard working, giving and loving. Not like jerry at all, they’re good people.
As is yours.
It’s not just your opinion but it’s one shared by most Americans. Also, your remark in not merely an opinion. It’s based on science. Of course there will always be people like the President of Iran who denies the realty of the Holocaust.
this is a heartwarming story, and someone always has be negative
An action no matter how well intended does not make a wrong right. The lives of embryos – that is, tiny human beings in their most nascent forms – left unattended to die off as a result of in vitro fertilization can never be resuscitated or brought back to life. The Sirois family committed a grave error. I hope they come to recognize this error if they have not already.
You clearly have a problem. There was nothing wrong with what the Sirois/Hebert family did, they brought a beautiful baby boy into this world into what can be one of the nicest, most caring families I have ever met. Women lose eggs once a month for goodness sake! Am I seriously wasting them by not being pregnant my entire life? Surely, I must be going to Hell. Get over yourself, please.
Look, I didn’t bring this story to the forefront. The BDN did this by exploiting the Sirois family. Because the story is now public I am merely pointing out the untold part of it that is not so glamorous, for the sake of humanity. My remarks are not about me even though sometimes I rather wish it was what with all the criticism I am getting.
Finally, the ova you shed monthly are not fertilized human eggs that amount to human life. But even it they were fertilized, the shedding would be an act of nature, not an intentional human act. I can assure you the Sirois family and the newborn child will be in my prayers regardless of how innocent or blameworthy the Sirois’s may be for submitting themselves to this controversial procedure, to say the least about it.
You’re the kind of person who defends LePage making a mockery of the holocaust — I doubt the Sirois families cares about your wacky opinions.
Would you get off your soap box and go become a Nun!!
Keep in mind, in Maine, you can marry your double first cousin-same DNA pool as a sibling. I’m just sayin’ .
what does this have to do with the topic at hand? since it was an implanted embryo conceived from two different DNA pools there is no inbreeding here…
Maybe you are just juxtaposing what is legal in the state against this article that the trolls see as weird?
Smell the coffee sweetie!!
Sounds like judgmental ignorance to me. And more of that big government from supposed small government conservatives.
That process happens in the body naturally as well. Women can have fertilized eggs in them that never attach to the wall of their uterus.
An embryo isn’t a baby or a life either. It can’t and never could live on its own outside of a woman’s body. You’ll really pushing the limit. Why not go back further and start talking about the repercussions of masturbation? And the eggs women waste every month? Think of the lives that could be created!
A newborn human baby can not survive on its own either. Are you suggesting that it is ok to kill them also?
Until science has found a way to breast feed an embryo I am going to have to dismiss your reasoning as nonsense.
wolfndeer made the comment that an embryo can’t live on its own outside a woman’s body. A newborn baby can’t either. Most babies are not breast fed in this country. They are bottle fed. Science has nothing to do with feeding a baby or an embryo, unless you want to discuss the chemistry of milk or the food going to the embryo through the placenta/umbilical cord. I won’t dismiss your reasoning, but you should research things more thoroughly.
Just correcting your information on bottle fed vs. breast feeding. here is a link to LaLeche League (famous for promoting breast feeding)
http://www.lalecheleague.org/cbi/bfstats03.html
It shows country by country the % of breast vs. bottle fed babies, the US is low compared to some countries, both industrial and nonindustrial countries. We are at about 70% (as of 2003).
My point being that since your comment about babies not being able to survive without their moms’ care is certainly true, you didn’t have to make up facts to support your argument.
If you read the info you provided you would see it is 70% at initiation and only 33% at 4-5 months. And they also appear to be biased.
I did read the info, thank you for doing the same.
What we both don’t know is the criteria they used, is this data for breast feeding exclusively? 4-5 months is typically when rice cereal or formula is introduced as a supplement to breast milk; sometimes because mom has to go back to work, some children are just ready based on appetite, growth, etc.
here’s info from the CDC. Yes, the older the children get, the less likely that mom is still breast feeding. But the data is consistent with LaLeche, saying over 70% of babies are breast fed.
’nuff said. we’re way off point. “Breastfeeding rates continue to rise, with increases of about 2 percentage points in breastfeeding initiation, and breastfeeding at 6 and 12 months. Breastfeeding initiation increased from 74.6% in 2008 to 76.9% in 2009 births. This improvement in initiation represents the largest annual increase over the previous decade. Breastfeeding at 6 months increased from 44.3% to 47.2%; breastfeeding at 12 months increased from 23.8% to 25.5%.”http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard.htm
That’s not what I meant. The constitutional standard of surviving on its own is surviving outside of a mother’s body. That’s an embryo, fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, that’s around 22 weeks old at least.
A fertilized egg that has no potential of ever becoming a human unless it is implanted and carried isn’t something that’s problematic with grave consequences. Like I said, the human body does the same thing on its own all the time.
Fair enough. Though I’m not sure if there is a constitutional standard for the age of the fetus. I think back in the 70s when they ruled on it, it was just on a woman’s right to have an abortion. I may be wrong, I didn’t look it up.
The logic behind it is essentially that a woman has a right to privacy (autonomy over her body), but there is also a government interest in the potential human she’s carrying. Since there are two important interests involved, there has to be some sort of balance between the two. The standard is that once a fetus/baby is viable, meaning it could live outside the mother, the government interests overpower the woman’s interests. Viability is generally around 20-something weeks (it keeps getting pushed back with technology though). Viability is just living outside of the mother — there can be all sorts of help, like machines, doctors, etc.
I’m just saying, I don’t think it is fair to say that a fertilized egg grown in a petri dish is a person and that somehow the Sirious family are bad because they did this.
put comment to single track girl in wrong place.
There is no such thing as a “potential human being”! Either a living entity is a human being or is not a human being. Get your biology and science right. Would you want “gays” to be selected for extermination? If not, then think again. It happened in Germany for instance. This is not intended as a threat to anybody including you. Rather it is intended to show what can happen if we don’t hold up the dignity of all human beings regardless of stature or development.
Biologically and scientifically, it’s a fetus and not a human being until it’s born. Don’t try and school me when you’re the one who is wrong.
Believe what you want to, after all it’s a free country. But for the sake of those who might be misled by you (obviously you’ve never consulted a textbook on biology or embryology on the matter of when human life begins) let me state unequivocally that a human fetus – a term used to describe the developmental stage of a human being – is a real living and unique human being that can never be re-created. The so-called president of Iran named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can repeat the false claim the Holocaust in Germany never occurred. That claim however – just like your claim – does not change reality.
Lie all you want, but it’s not a person until it’s born. In the womb it’s a fetus. Period.
Well, there seems to have been a change of position on your part. First you stated the fetus was not a human being. But you were on the wrong side of science. Now you are saying it’s not a “person”, which is what the US. Supreme in its companion decisions, Roe v Wade and Roe v Dalton, stated when it essentially re-defined “person” to mean a human being past the stage of birth. Before that time, a person was the equivalent of the human being no matter how small it was or at what stage it had developed in the spectrum from embryo to adulthood. Reprehensibly the US Supreme Court made a distinction our founding fathers had never intended. In doing so it exceeded its authority of interpreting the Constitution by making their own personal views a part of their ruling. In order words, it legislated from the bench.
I haven’t changed my position whatsoever. The definitions change depending on which field/context you’re speaking in.
Science and medical field — fetus until born. That’s not the “wrong side of science.” You’re misinformed.
Legally — You’re a person when you’re born. The government’s interests overpower a woman’s interests when the fetus hits viability.
Look, you have an opinion and that’s fine, but quit spreading misinformation and acting like it’s fact. You aren’t in the majority when you say that a pack of cells in a petri dish is a human being. Yes, cells are living, but so is the the blood that drops from my finger when I cut it. Just because something is alive, it doesn’t make it an independent living thing.
You’re lying or are misinformed when you say that the courts legislated from the bench and that they removed personhood from ” a person was the equivalent of the human being no matter how small it was or at what stage it had developed in the spectrum from embryo to adulthood”. That is extremely wrong. A fetus has never been regarded as a person in the history of US law. Not ever. The first time a fetus was granted protections was Roe v. Wade when it allowed for the government’s interests to take over. Now we recognize some fetal protections, but do not extend (nor have we ever) personhood to a fetus.
No sense arguing with you concerning the onset of human life since I must presume you still have not consulted any one textbook on embryology. At this point too I doubt you ever will.
One more thing, yes indeed, the fetus was regarded as a person prior to Roe v Wade. Of course you are probably too young to remember when all states in the Union either outlawed abortion outright or restricted it as in the case of New York and California.
I know some liberals are being paid for posting in venues such as this one. Are you one of them?
A fetus isn’t a person. Period. A pack of cells in a petri dish isn’t a person. Period. Keep shouting textbook all you want, but it doesn’t make it true.
And I’m so sorry for being a nasty liberal using facts against you. Really awful of me. I’m not being paid for this.
You haven’t presented one iota of evidence nor even referred to one authoritative source for your information. I’ve given you a source but you refuse to look at it. This adage seems to apply in your case: You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
You’re lying. I’ve cited numerous sources. You can’t point to the sky and convince me it’s green — no matter how many times you repeat it. An embryo isn’t a person. A fetus isn’t a person.
Again, the source is a textbook on embryology. Did you forget?
I’m going to support wolfndeer on this. There is no need to accuse him or her of being paid. He is giving his opinion just like the rest of us. There very well may be liberals or conservatives being paid to post on this site’s forums. But I would hazard a guess that most people that post here truly believe what they state. No need at all for name calling.
That’s true. But I don’t really understand why he won’t consult an authoritative source when given an opportunity. That’s why I asked the poster if he or she was being paid. This poster keeps saying I lie when he is not willing to turn to an authoritative source in embryology to demonstrate his point. I’ve been asking him to do so for months up until now. Either he is being paid to spread misinformation, is afraid to check the textbook source on embryology, or has done so and did not like what he read. I know what I am talking about because I’ve formally studied embryology at the college level. It’s not really hard to see if a person like myself is lying when he is willing to direct you an authoritative source of information.
You keep saying you cited a source and you never did. The only thing you linked to or referenced was to an article about the holocaust being denied.
You accuse me of things you’re doing. People have cited real sources to you and you’re ignoring it. An embryo is not a person. Your opinion? Maybe you might think it is one. But not medically and not legally either.
LOL – ”
I know some liberals are being paid for posting in venues such as this one. Are you one of them? ”
Really? Believe me when I tell you that nobody needs to get paid to call you out – you make them more then willing to do it for free
I asked Poster wolfndeer that question because he has been resisting for many months to look at a source of information that contradicts his statement about when human life begins. Yes, indeed there are people who are being paid to post for ideological reasons.
I am sure he/she looked at it deemed it a bunch of garbage and moved on – to bad they can’t sue you for the 5 mins of time they wasted on your source.
Ahmadinejad did not deny the holocaust. What he was challenging was a European disaster foisted on the world by Germany that was the basis for creating Israel in the middle east. He was challenging that. What not take land from Germany to create a Jewish state there? THAT was his point.
In reality Ahmadinejad moderated his views after worldwide criticism.
Without any doubt he denied the the Holocaust before retracting
some aspects of his views. Sounds like a sleazy politician, doesn’t it?
Check out the this link concerning his denial:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/18/us-iran-idUSTRE58H17S20090918
That’s Reuters’ spin. Other sources go direct to his native tongue to find his meaning that the pretext for creating a Jewish homeland was Germany’s holocaust. Not that he denied the mass murder by Germany of Jews, but that he challenges the myth of the creation of Israel as a response to the holocaust.
If my memory of history is correct, the British were in control of Palestine in the late 30s thru 1948. The Israelis fought against the British rule in order to establish Isreal. The U.S.A. was the first country to recognize them in the UN and to give them legitimacy. No one took the land other than the Jewish people fighting a civil war.
You are only partially correct. The British double-dealed. They spoke with forked tongues to the Arabs and to Zionists.
Please explain that to the thousands of displaced Palestinians who are now living in a ghetto behind a wall built by people who had lived in European ghettos behind a wall.
In early June 2009, Ahmadinejad described Israel as “the most criminal regime in human history” and spoke about the “great deception of the Holocaust” in a speech quoted by IRIB.
Ahmadinejad was praised by Syrian Author Muhammad Nimr Al-Madani (author of “Were the Jews Burned in the Ovens?, Beirut: Al-Manara, 2001) who has previously claimed that “Hitler Was Falsely Accused of Committing Genocide against the Jews”. In an interview on Al-Alam TV (Iran), Al-Madani stated that “I was very happy when the Iranian president denied the Holocaust. Since I am convinced of the need to fight this lie, I was filled with admiration at the words of the Iranian president” and that “those who claim that the Holocaust took place do not have any proof.” He also praised Ahmadinejad as “the first leader in the world to adopt Holocaust denial. This is a great event.”
Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Roosevelt, in a letter to her mother in law on 1/14/1918, wrote:
I’ve got to go to the Harris party which I’d rather by hung than seen at, mostly Jews.”
Are you willing to defend the equal rights and dignity a gay child once he has been born?
First of all no one can predict what a child’s sexual preference will be. Nonetheless, I am willing the defend the rights of all people, including gays. This of course doesn’t mean I favor changing the definition of marriage to include endorsement of gay relationships.
I love you Whawell, but did you cheer when you read this line in George Orwell’s Animal Farm?
“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”
because the rest of us shuddered.
I’m glad you mentioned “Animal Farm” by George Orwell. After reading the book over 40 years ago I remembered that line you cited very well since. It makes my point very well. In this country all human beings are equal but those who are born are more equal. This does indeed make me shudder. It was a sad day in my life as a former atheist when I learned about the SCOTUS twin decisions Roe v Wade and Roe v Bolton that gave women the so-called right to kill their unborn child effectively for any reason at any point during pregnancy. To tell you the truth I didn’t think Americans would put up with this decision for very long, but I was wrong.
It doesn’t surprise me that you missed Orwell’s, and my point entirely, which is (I will try to type slowly for you)
All.people.are.equal. period.
gay people. straight people.
Please, use your Christian heart to advocate for all people, not just those that fit in your particular ‘barnyard’.
Christ would have. I believe that.
Thanks for your response. I know you are a nice person but for many reasons, religious and otherwise, I really deep down in my heart can’t advocate for gay marriage.
it cant survive on its on indefinitely but it certainly can live outside the human body. I personally don’t like abortion but I don’t want this to turn into a pro life/choice debate… I agree with wolfndeer on this that claiming an embryo is a life is very much pushing it. If you take an embryo out of a women or create it in a test tube and then take it out and set it on the counter it will not breath or cry or poop or any of those things babies do.
They create multiple embryos to ensure a well enough specimen to implant just like the natural process… sometimes couples created dozens of embryos until one successful implants and matures.
well, with all due respect, why would we go WAY back to those aguements, when we are (with the support of people who hold your same views) sucking babies out of women with a vacuum cleaner….I think we better continue the discussion about late term abortions and parental notifications for minors that is much more destructive process and leave the other egg and sperm arguments for the coffee shop…also, if you have no moral beachhead or concept for the conscious, really you might want to just argue with your own side about this issue…..you cannot just hopscotch the moral or social implications and arrive at the argument saying “I am here!!! and my arguement is on the same level as yours”…its not…Its like if you were to come in here and argue that Jerry Sandusky was the greatest assistant coach in the history of college football…you probably would be right, but…you can’t just spout out statistic after to statistic stating your point, because you would probably be right….but he is a evil, sinister person who robbed the youth of many, thus your argument, albeit correct, cannot overcome the initial important part of his story…he is a monster and such, the argument of best assistant football coach cannot go forward..IN GOOD FAITH….you could certainly move your argument forward, but its on the premise that pedophilia is ok and should be put on the shelf to make your point
An amazing gift from mother to daughter!
I wonder if they’ll do it again someday.
ewwwww
ewwww
I think this is a great option. The mother knows her health and when someone has a serogate, you don’t know what they are doing that could endanger the fetus. Congratulations to all involved.
Just call me Ishmael…
Let me guess, your going to vote for Romney and Ryan to make sure this doesn’t keep happening. Am I right?
Due to their stance on the “sanctity of life” at conception, destruction of the embryos would not be permitted with certain legislation being proposed in the House of Representatives. That has been the whole argument, all along, about the right-wing opposition to stem cell research. I am glad that the Sirois family was able to have a beautiful child but keep in mind that they may not have had this blessing if the “sanctity of life” legislation were to become the law of the land.
Great for them, of course. But there are so many children in need of adoption.
Oh be careful, I said that too and I am being put on trial
Let’s spend time and money for this instead of adopting!
It’s THEIR time and money, so who are you to judge how they spend it?
Sorry didn’t say anywhere in my post that I was the judge of that, your assumption has been noted without facts, oh and I forgot to mention, you see to know everything and are close with this family, can you assure me it was their money and say no tax dollars or my donations to a charity was used?
I’ve never met this family, so your ASSumption that I have inside information is wrong. Can you assure me it WASN’T their money?
But you just got done saying it was their money though, so nice ASSumption on your part too!
The state of Maine does not require, by law, that insurance companies cover any procedure that is fertility related – from diagnostics to IUI and beyond, so it’s likely that they had to foot the bill out of pocket (savings, second mortgage, etc.)
Kudos to you for donating to charity! When you choose a charity to donate to, you have every right to inquire what that money will be used for and decide accordingly as to whether or not you wish to continue to contribute or cease donating altogether.
For example, one local “charity” throws donated items away quickly if they don’t generate revenue in their “store”, so I chose instead to donate to another agency that finds people in need who can actually use these items, and some agencies even have a wish list – which makes it easier to donate/contribute knowing that your donation is useful.
Was it their money?
This woman and her husband made this baby, she just could not carry him because it would stress her heart. Someone agreed to be the oven, that is all. It doesn’t make him any less their son. It is their sperm and egg, their DNA…unless you just go ahead and adopt rather than trying for a biological child of your own then you have no leg to stand on. Who knows, maybe they will adopt, maybe they will adopt 10 kids, for now they wanted their own biological child.
Tell that to the kids who need a home, already here, already born, etc Trust me, I got a leg to stand on….
It really isn’t your business how they chose to make their family.
It really isn’t your business to care about my comment either
An embryo is not a thinking, breathing human being yet. It’s just a lump of cells.
No one threw a life away.
Perhaps you happen to know something about embryology that the embryologists don’t know themselves! Maybe you could set them straight by notifying them.
Embryologists aren’t on your side.
this is a wonderful story! so happy for the whole family. this child will have alot of love. congratulations!
Every woman’s body rejects zygotes at that initial stage on a regular basis before one implants and actually begins to form a human baby.
They are not even embryos yet at that stage.
Yes, a woman’s body might reject a zygote during pregnancy. People die of different causes at different times. There are certain childhood diseases like Mitochondrial Encephalopathy and Cystic Fibrosis that bring about death. Of course you are not suggesting we should take away the right to life of a child. But you’re argument nonetheless does seem to suggest that.
Congrats!
Wow!!!! After reading some ridiculous posts about this article (or rather quickly scanning them over) I’ve come to the conclusion that a couple of these individuals must be quite unhappy and negative people…. Is it really that hard to see the point of the story and how one family (a very good family btw) is only sharing their happiness with others… Showing others that there is still hope to those who may think something is out of reach!!!! Some people never cease to amaze me!!!
guess who paid for it….not the family…..
who paid for it then?
Why should we give a —- about a microscopic, hardly-a-being clump of cells. More people than anyone could even imagine are killed everyday due to real struggle. Why don’t you take a stand on AIDS or cancer or war or civil unreset and stop worrying about test tube/aborted babies.
Sorry, but my concern is about all human life, including AIDS, cancer, civil unrest and the like. This includes the killing of at least 55 million babies in their mother’s wombs. Incidentally, my concern is for both mother and child. It’s not accident that more than half of the mothers who aborted a child admit to regretting their abortion. They know the abortion was wrong. Abortion could have very well taken your life as well. Thank God and your mother for not aborting you. Think about it.
After reading all the stupidness below I just want to say congratulations to the Mother, Father, and Grandmother on the birth of Madden.
Is it just me or is any one else hearing banjos?
This sort of disturbs me
What a great story! I would do this in a second for either one of my children, it would be an honor :). Congrats to the family.
Winston Churchill, in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, commented on the “sinister confderacy” of ‘international Jewry.” He said,” This movement among the Jews is not new.” Later, he continued with his opinion that Jews were responsible for a “world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.”
What happens in the County stays in the County….
If the person who delivered the baby was transgendered, then the mother of the baby, mother of the egg-donor mother, could have also been the grandfather.
Oh please…. of course there is nothing wrong with this world……
Awesome!!!